tv [untitled] CSPAN June 16, 2009 1:00am-1:30am EDT
and healthy, and it will always try to get around the constraints of a regulation, so we have to find the balance. we did not get the balance right. you can look at the last couple of years and say, "we have got the balance right." in the future, we need to do this if we will have an economy that is less honorable to these risks. >> gee, that is going to restrict what i am going to do is what some people will say. >> we cannot go back to where it was. that is true. that is true for the united states and four countries around the world. it has been too cute. -- and for countries around the world. it has been too acute. we can do that without depriving
the economy. we will not get the balance perfect. i understand the risk of going too far, but i do not think that is the risk that we face. tighter, better able to adapt. >> going to the other side of defense, as a consumer, however i going to be protected -- going to the other side of the fence, as a consumer, how am i going to be protected? >> i think the president is going to speak on wednesday about the details on the consumer side, but you want to have a system where there is more disclosure. there is more standardization, a little less complexity in products. people are less likely to be taken advantage of at moments of weakness. if you look at what happens in the core proposals that underpin the credit card reforms that congress passed, in the crowded
area, more generally -- this was the focus of lots of bad practice -- in the general area, more generally. we want to change that, the predatory behavior. >> we only have a couple of minutes, so a couple of questions. are you and larry summers as great of buddies as you have always been? >> i think he is one of the most talented people in the world, sitting around the table, looking at options, figuring out how to make choices -- it is my pleasure to work with him. >> and if you were bcf of this financial system -- if you were the cfm of this financial system -- the cfo --
>> he is doing a great job of that. >> you had kind of a rocky beginning in this job. from the time you were announced as treasury secretary, if you could go back and have one do- over, what would it be? >> that is an excellent question, but i am a little focused at the moment, trying to fix this, but if i look back, i think we made the right judgment early in making sure we get substantial macroeconomic policy -- we had substantial macroeconomic policy, helping to stem the housing crisis, getting capital into the institutions, and helping ease credit markets to get going again. if you look at what has happened, that has been validated. the president, at the earliest
stage, has looked at this, and a lot of what you've seen around the world reflects the strength of that coordinated commitment to a stimulus, so i think those are the right judgments. we are not going to get everything right, and we need to be able to adjust strategy going forward, but i think those core strategies are right. >> mr. secretary, thank you, and good luck. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> starting tomorrow, look for our newly redesigned web site for booktv.org. you can share the videos you are watching with everyone you know. the redesigned booktv.org.
look for it, starting tomorrow. >> in a few moments, alaska senator murkowski on the energy bill. after that, president obama talks about the future of health care. later, we hear from treasury secretary timothy geithner. on "washington journal" tomorrow, we will discuss the supplemental spending bill with jane hamsher. dr. bernadine healy in on at 9:00 a.m..
unexpected encounters. "washington journal" on c-span, every day, 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of live events to tell you about on our companion network, c-span3, tomorrow. a subcommittee holds a meeting on insurance industry oversight at 10:00 a.m. eastern. they will look at policies that might threaten the financial system. later, the senate policy committee. this is at 2:30 p.m. eastern. >> july 4 weekend, discover an unfamiliar sight of our nation's first president -- an unfamiliar ligh of side of our
nation's first president. >> the senate energy committee continues marking up a bill this week. they spoke about the legislation monday to the energy association. this is one hour. senator lisa murkowski. >> good afternoon. i am barry, an executive director, and it is my pleasure to welcome you. it is our pleasure to have senator lisa murkowski. this is on the record, as are all of our briefings. she is only the six the center of alaska -- the sixth center of alaska. she joined the senate in 2002 -- the six senatth senator of alas.
she is a member of the senate appropriations committee, and she is on the senate indian affairs committee. we all understand how busy she is competent to release these days, so we appreciate your taking time out of your schedule to be with us -- we understand how busy she is these days, so we appreciate your taking time and rescheduled to be with us. >> i think timing wise -- taking time out of your schedule to be with us. >> i think timing wise, this is good. this has been a part of my life for the past three months as we have order to advance an energy bill. i was at a gathering a few days back, and somebody commented
that the energy bill coming out of the senate energy committee was the longest, moorestown and torturous markup -- most torturous markup that they have seen, and i thought it was interesting that they framed it that way, complaining that it took so long. it has been a very long process and, perhaps, somewhat tedious, but i think, certainly from the individual who mentioned this, their perspective was finally a committee that was actually taking the time to go over some very difficult issues, some very contentious issues, and really debate them, have some constructive debate on issues that are of concern around the country, whether it is debating the parameters of an r.e.s,
whether it is debating the benefits of revenue-sharing to enhance domestic production, particularly with the revenue- sharing debate that we had last week. that really evoked passion on both sides, and yet, i think at the end of that debate, and my side lost that, you will recall, but i think that there was a sense that we had the ability to really discuss why that was important, get those issues on the table, and then you vote, and, you know, sometimes, you are going to lose, and sometimes, you are going to win, but at least we have a process that is working, as those who may be a junior in high school understand how this process works. this process does play out.
one of the reasons that senator bingaman and i are both very anxious to see the energy bill wrapped up, in addition to the fact that it has been long, is that we are both involved in health care legislation on the health committee, and that is a process right now where i can tell you juxtaposing of both committees are handling it very important -- i can tell you juxtaposing both committees -- juxtaposing how both committees are handling it -- we intend to wrap things up, either by tomorrow, although more likely wednesday morning.
we have a few things that are outstanding, a few things with energy markets, and a couple of hanger-ons that we need to clean up. there are 22, i am to approve zero, 17, and then we had a handful, as well -- there are 22 i am told? oh, 17. we do fully intended to wrap things up. is it a perfect bill? absolutely not. for those of you may have read the article in this morning's "the washington post, i think it's something up -- in this morning's "the washington post," i think it's sum it up -- it
summoed it up. being in that sweet spot, i would hope so. i think it will remain to be seen how the votes will come out with this bill on wednesday. i do not know. i do not think that some of my colleagues think that it goes far enough, and a thing there others that think another piece does not go far enough, and i think there are others that think another piece does not go far enough -- i do not think that some of my colleagues think that it goes far enough, and i think there are others that think another piece does not go far enough. i think this is a positive. there aspects -- there are aspects. i know that many of you know that i have not been a supporter
of r.e.s., but the standard we have in this bill is a more palatable standard with what we are able to get in as relates to new hydro -- excuse me, a new nuclear. we got some alaska hydro provisions -- excuse me, new nuclear. do i like it? no, but is it better? yes. so, again, there are aspects of the bill that i wish we could enhance more. i do not think we do enough for nuclear in this energy bill, and i am disappointed in that, but i think that is something you will see when you go to the floor a great deal more discussion about how nuclear will play a role in
the emerging energy policy as we work to reduce our emissions. i think that that has to be a bigger factor, but we do make good strides in advancing energy. the clean energy deployment bank is, i think, critically important for us, and that is a provision that senator bingaman and i very early on came together on and said, "this should be a keystone, a cornerstone of our legislation," and i think that is a good, strong peace. we have got efficiency components and their that i think are good, a good energy work force training component -- we have got energy-efficient components in theire that i thik are good.
there are other energy forms, as well, after about three months, i would say that we have put together a product that is comprehensive, looks to how we get to the next generation of renewable energy sources while at the same time recognizing that it is are more conventional fuel sources, whether it is oil, natural gas, or coal that have made this country what it is, and we will need to continue to use those resources. l.a.n. of along work period we want to see where it goes. -- at the end of a long work period, we want to see where it goes. when to go to the floor with it?
i do not believe, certainly, we will see anything before fall. you have got enough on our plate right now with the appropriations bills that are starting to come through. we have got the judge sotomayor confirmation, and, obviously, we are going to be focused on some other issues before we move to energy. if it were to come before fall, i would be amazed, so with that, i throw out to you for the fun questions. >> if you are posing a question, would you please identify your name and your news organization, please? >> senator, i know you mentioned that you have some problems with the legislation.
do you expect it to go forward? >> well, i knew that that was going to be your first question. of course, you always went to leave your options open, just in case this guy should fall tomorrow. in looking at what we have outstanding, there are a couple of provisions in the oil and gas provision that i will tell you now cause me great trouble. these are amendments from democratic colleagues that would put limitations, further limitations, on oil production. i am very concerned about them. i am very hopeful that either they will not be brought up or that they will fail. i have said repeatedly that in order for me towei weigh this out, the domestic production
peace has got to be meaningful, and as it is now -- the domestic production piece has got to be meaningful. it could be much stronger. i recognize that. my concern is that we may be in a position tomorrow where with a couple of amendments, for all intents and purposes, you could stop, say, for instance, alaska oil operation on shore and off -- onshore and off, and if that happens, that to me is a poison pill. >> if those amendments were not to be offered or past, -- or passed -- >> i am much more inclined to support its, yes.
-- to support it, yes. the energy bill. speaking about that, is the health care process really so onerous as it moves to the floor -- what do you think is the most realistic thing that you seek on the floor? realistically, what do you say that may be a way to get to common ground? >> let's to the second part of your question first. i think nuclear is a place where we could do a little bit better than we had in committee. i have had conversations with some of my colleagues on the other side who agree, for a
multitude of different reasons, that nuclear must be a larger player in our energy portfolio, and they have indicated that they want to work with me to make that happen. so i think that is one area where we will be able to make some, i think, positive changes to the bill. i know many of my republican colleagues are going to want to work very hard in enhancing some of the oil and gas, the domestic production pieces. as you know, sometimes the domestic production peaciece tas on a partisan bent. it should not. i would like to think that that might be an area where if we frame the amendments right, we
can pick up the necessary support from some of our democratic colleagues, but that is a tougher lift. you have already heard from some that they're going to attempt to either strip out or beef up or pull down some of the aspects of the bill. some do not like the r.e.s. some think it needs to be much higher. senator nelson has threatened to filibuster. i think senator bingaman -- my earlier comment is that there is something in here for everyone to hate. the question is, do you hate it so much that you would be willing to throw away the more helpful pieces?
do you foresee that the process is so bad that it will take it? it is just getting started. and we did the walk-through last week. -- getting so bad that it will taint it? there was this 600-and-some-odd bill. there were sections where they are just essentially placeholders. as i left work on friday night, i was talking with someone, and she was, like, "boss, i am prepared to be writing amendments all week long, and i know where you are going on this one piece, but my challenge, "she says, "i do not know what i am doing, and we are moving to a markup in two days." and so, that is extremely frustrating.
you will hear republicans complain off the route that we have not seen a complete text -- you'll hear republicans complain all throughout that we have not seen a complete text. the response is, "well, we really have not identified that yet," so i think we can see, republicans and democrats alike, that this discussion on health care reform is imperative. it is important. we have got to move through it, but if the goal is to get a product by some certain date rather than good policy, that is going to be a real problem. i do not have any problem at all to sit three days and days
and weeks and weeks of marcus, -- sit through days and days. and weeks and weeks of markup. you have got a time that is set in stone, and, by golly, that is what it will be. >> what about the energy bill? the environmental provisions? >> which provisions? >> the environmental provisions. >> they are alpharetta. >> could you please elaborate some more -- they are all throughout. >> could you please elaborate some more? >> for example, when you look at the renewables electric standards, this is a push that is designed -- the renewable
electric standards, this is a push that is designed. i say this with a little bit of frustration, because i have asked continually as we have gone through this debate, if our goal with an r.e.s. is to reduce emissions, the nuclear has to be part of that, because you have an energy source that is not committing any carbon, -- not remitting -- not emitting any carbon. but there are those that think that the goal is to erect more wind turbines to put in place more solar panels and to advance those technologies, advance those industries, advance those green jobs. well, it is fine to advance industries and to advance green jobs, but, please, as we put in
place an r.e.s. standards, let's recognize that those energy sources that do not have carbon emissions should be in our favorite category, and they are not. as i say, we made some small wins with new nuclear and upgrades, and we made some small wins with hydro, but there is kind of a trade-off here. there is an assumption that you have your power generated by the wind or buying the sun, and it is environmentally pure. well, if you are using solar that uses any amount of water, that is a problem. if you have got wind that is in
the path of a fly away, that is a problem -- a fly away -- a flyway, we need to be looking at how we reduce our emissions in a meaningful way. >> rebecca cooper. i am wondering if you could talk about the nature of nuclear being more sensitive or something more specific, and, secondly, if you could also talk about the nuclear amendment in the committee before the end of the markup. >> i think what you're going to see is good it constructive debate, and i think those well -- those will include how we deal with the wasan